Damn, I didn't know I was an idiot. Guess that's the way idiocy works. When I discovered Substack earlier this year I thought I found pure gold. People with brains doing real thinking, and most importantly, questioning. This idiot is sticking around as long as they'll let me.
For me it was a link from a bio-chemist friend. It's interesting because in the discussion threads I've found in the Substack community (still figuring out what that means) are much more diverse in viewpoints expressed than in other forums. It can be a black-hole absorbing time. When people disagree here, it is most often either a reasoned debate or adolescent humor (usually both) with a hint of respectful exchange. On other forums, disagreement seems more often expressed as "you suck!" or "you're evil and I hope you die!" which is not nearly as much fun as real discussion.
i find comments on various substacks generally reflect the nature and character of the original writer. it is plainly obvious just reading the substacks that generally agree on the nature of the mrna vaccines.
I agree - hooray Substack. But perhaps not pure gold. I recently found a video interview with Mike Yeadon - who occasionally posted comments here; and context strongly suggested it was actually him. But in this interview he claims he is almost entirely prevented from commenting on any substack site.
He posts, re-freshes and they are gone "never reach the author". I have not seen anything from him in weeks; here or other sites where I once saw him. "I am essentially muted" he reports:
That would be bad ... for Substack! We can always setup on a TOR site or on the Qortal network where censoring is impossible with the peer to peer nature of it. Slower but can't be blocked.
Most sites are hosted by AWS or Google. Most other services are leasing the guts from AWS or Google. And all those servers are connected via government regulated telecommunications services. Mostly built by a few telecom giants.
Very interesting - thanks - (do you have a link?) - "these days"? -how do you assess anything!? - The video above is probably a month old - it certainly does look like the person I have been identifying as Mike Yeadon, PhD. speaking ... it would be perhaps easier to impersonate persons in a substack forum. I wonder why "Mike Yeadon" never started his own substack? - I am aware of one very cogent, well written position paper by him. https://doctors4covidethics.org/the-covid-lies/
Substack doesn't appear to let you easily expand all comments or search within comments. I think I'll send them a suggestion. The standard webpage "site:" search command doesn't seem to work on comment pages.
Thanks - nice to see him here again! - I did (for my own satisfaction) review his remarks on that video posted on Sept 20 (I assumed the video itself was fairly contemporary with that). He does stress, that he can "occasionally" post comments on Substack (never on utube); but then he asserts he is "often banned" from posting comments and describes how they will fail to be displayed after "Post"ing.
Substack is clearly the only positive outcome of the Covid operation; but it actually started in 2017; I would think 95%+ of the readership is post-pandemic. There is good reason to believe that powerful people and interests find it extremely threatening.
Thanks for the substack article on Forbes, which dates from January 2021, almost 2 years ago. I found it interesting that they chose to focus on the email delivery aspect. That's a minor point for me – I read most of the articles on the web or in the substack app, but for me the bigger attraction is the comment section. Substack comment discussions tend to be more civilized and interesting than on other platforms.
I don't bother with Twitter at all, and, being old as dirt, I find it hard to follow "discussions" there.
'I assumed the video itself was fairly contemporary with that'
We can't assume anything. For example that video clip of the Canadian actress with Bell's palsy that's currently making the rounds dates from May 2021, purportedly (I haven't tried to confirm it myself, that's what I read somewhere in a comment.)
Many people complain about hearts not showing up, and I have observed myself that often when I post a comment it doesn't show up right away. You can always reload the page and then your heart or comment will show up. There's a delay on the page refresh, is all. I'm not saying that's what was happening to Dr. Mike, but it's a possibility.
That said, I know individual substack authors can ban specific users from commenting. That's another possibility. But it's not a substack problem per se.
Oh dear. I spent my entire mornings reading various substacks so it would take me a long time to retrace my steps and find it. If I do, I'll let you know. Dr. Yeadon does comment not infrequently in various substacks, but we can only assume he's the real thing.
Is this another Catch-22? If you are smart enough to realize when you are being an idiot does that mean...ah never mind I'm getting a headache ;-).
But seriously...well semi-seriously (too close to serious and I get an allergic reaction),
The demonization of independent thought has been ongoing for decades. It seems to be escalating, but perhaps that is really just an awareness level - now we know what it looks like we see it more. And it looks ugly, kids.
I routinely advocate primary sources. When discussing proposed or actual legislation, I encourage people to read it themselves. You would probably not be surprised at the abuse I receive for such suggestions. Frequently because people really want to believe the politicians and media description and reading the actual text contradicts what they've been told the bill or law contains.
It used to be "I don't have time" or "it's too complicated for a lay person to understand" (two clear signs of bad law BTW is it's overly verbose and complex). But more recently, more overtly, it is "evil demon-spawn right wing extremist Trump-lover BEGONE!" or there abouts.
One of my greatest irritations with legislation is the practice of assigning a name to it, which is often totally opposite the effect the legislation will have. "Inflation Reduction Act of 2022"
It's become so common that I expect it. Most bills are also loaded with "motherhood" text that extolls the virtues of the bill and are usually absurdly contrary to the actual content of the bill, too.
I would add one more to your list of real thinking, real questioning. It would be putting in to practice what real thinking and real questioning reveal. Practice is proof of the pudding. You may think you have the perfect design for a rocket. But when you build you are humbled.
Absolutely. I was never a huge Rush fan because I worked nights when he rose to fame and I just never got a chance to listen. But during the Russia hoax I started reading his website and realized I had missed a pretty good thing. In fact, one day he said, "If you want peace in your life, turn off the TV." , or something to that effect. And I did. We watch old movies on Netflix or Prime if we watch anything. I haven't watched commercial TV in years so I felt none of the pressure to get vaxxed, saw none of the COVID fear mongering and got all my news from alternative media. One the smartest things I ever did.
In the Wizard of Oz, the Wizard grants recognition to the Scarecrow, Tin Man and Lion after they demonstrated their virtues. The Scarecrow had the education, but not the diploma. In our society, it’s the opposite. “Experts” get their credentials first without mastery of anything. Then, they wage war against anything or anyone who might expose them. Here’s a test: how many people lecturing us on the climate crisis know anything at all about the climate? How many of the “my mask protects you” crowd had read anything other than the curated information that El Gato writes about? The answer is virtually none. It’s not science, knowledge or expertise. It is Joseph Goebbels.
My uncle, who taught school for over 40 years, had this, (among several other irreverent Twain quotes), on his classroom wall. Said it kept him humble, and "the school board off his ass". (Note: All of his 42 years as a teacher were in small rural schools.)
Back in the late 1980s a colleague of mine came to me with a problem. He was trying to use simulation code developed by JPL which modeled upper atmospheric circulation. The model had just been published, and he had gotten the code from the JPL team. His problem was that he could change significantly the input parameters without seeing any change in the output. In the world of computer simulations models, this is usually a property we call "broken". Upon deep dive into the code, we found some errors...consulting with the original research team at JPL, we traced most to some errors in the mathematical foundation of the model. Subsequently, the JPL team published an update correcting the errors in the model, including an update to the paper and to the code.
Subsequently the "man made global warming" claims began to emerge. First in some fairly serious looking research papers, one of which came to my attention. I noted it was based on conclusions reached using the JPL simulation models. I noted in the citation the original (broken) version was cited. An interested colleague contacted the authors to confirm that they had indeed used the original model, not the corrected model published later.
A dozen years latter I found myself developing research tools that made integrating information from multiple publication tools practical. As a test I ran a source-tree analysis of all available published papers in public databases on the topic of climate change (this being around 2000 it was still called "global warming"). What I found was astounding - when tracing back references, the result is an inverted pyramid with the original (broken) JPL model at the point! The foundation of "greenhouse gas" is a broken simulation model which was subsequently fixed by the team that created it - and the corrected version does not support the greenhouse gas theory behind "CO2 is evil" litany.
That's when I realized there was no science, only politics, in the man-made global warming field of "the science". Of course by then the warnings signs were abundant - "the science is settled" and "all the worlds experts agree" were constant mantras.
That research you did is something few know about. Was it ever published? My guess is that it would still likely to be valid.
One point has always stuck with me is that most modelling software becomes exceedingly complex over time. Should the original developers move on, maintenance becomes more and more difficult and revisions nearly impossible. Perhaps more modern tools resolve the issue, but I doubt it.
I recommend Steven Koonin’s book “Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What it Doesn’t, and Why it Matters.” Koonin was Undersecretary for Science at the Department of Energy under Obama. He points out the difference between what the science actually says and what it is reported to say.
I'll have to take a look, but if Koonin is really speaking the truth about this, he's bound to be cancelled. And hard. That's been made very, very clear. Silence and cancel, but the numbers still don't work to support the "carbon mitigation to save the planet" story.
A geologist will tell you , at least in private, that climate change is real, but not affected by green house gases or human activity. There has been no point in the history of this planet so far when the climate wasn't changing. We've been through multiple ice ages (yes more than one). Geophysics of this planet is well supported by evidence indicating that once the entire planet was much, much warmer than it is now (as in mostly molten) and that it was once much colder most places. Warmer than during the most recent ice age of course. Which was much colder than before it's onset. The core of the planet is thought to be molten, with numerous geophysical observations supporting this theory such as active lava flows. BTW a single Volcano emits more so called green house gasses (GSG) per "event" than all of human activity has produced in our existence, or could produce in millions of years more (should we survive). This is where the numbers really fail to add up to the conclusion that human activity has impacted climate.
The real danger of climate change is the GSG based denial of reality. Humans have shown to be adaptable creatures. When we put our collective minds to it, we find solutions. But first we need to focus on the real problems. Reducing "carbon emissions" and other GSG "mitigations" is denial of reality. Change is inevitable, it is how the planet works. We *may* have control over how we deal with change. But the GSG swindle denies the opportunity to seek actual solutions.
True. That's when we break out the Sokratic method.
"Which expert(s)?"
"How do you know he/she is correct?"
"Do you think the 35sec snippet on TV was the entire interview they did with [expert+title+field]?"
And so on. Expect more rumination, possibly anger, and a change of subject. A smaller percentage will become passive-aggressive and try to do the same to you, which is easily deflated. All you really need is one or two named sources, preferably commonly known names or official governemental agencies - and those doesn't need to be from your own nation.
Example: if saying you refrain from mRNA-shots due to the risk of myo-/pericarditis and is challenged, refer to the japanese studies made and the warnings issued by their medical corps.
If your debate-opponent is woke, it makes it even more delicious to imply they are dismissing data and research because the origin is non-white...
In my experience this does not work, they are happy to dismiss whatever source you name and instead cite "all the experts" or "everyone." The most you'll get is a "hmm, I'll have to look into that," followed by immediately forgetting the conversation ever happened.
Sad to hear that, but I have experienced it as well. I think it may well have to do with perceived interpersonal status. Like this:
Unless I dress for a formal occasion, I wear drab old well-worn practical clothing with no other thought than how practical they are - old hunting clothes, or army surplus/old uniform - Hollywood Hillbilly if you know what I mean.
And I have noticed a very clear difference in response depending on whether I look like that, or if I'm wearing bluejeans and t-shirt, or even suit and tie. The more formal the look, the less hostile the response.
The same goes for language. If I channel all the academical blather I've learned over the years, along with the mannerisms, that again lowers the likelyhood of hostile or dismissive repsonse. Especially if the tone of voice and phrasing is kept reconcilliatory and slightly worried without crossing over into condescending.
On the other hand, if I go for man-of-the-woods-carrying-an-axe in appearance and manner, people tries to shut me down.
Of course, this is purely anecdotal, and I'm discounting national and regional differences too, but maybe there's some slivver of a point in this?
Sadly, I have to agree. Many of the unfortunate souls who suffer from that loathsome affliction, (woke-ism), are also affected by a curious form of amnesia that renders the sufferers unable to recall ANY opinion that runs counter to the narrative of the hour.
Haha. Yeah the commenter was asking what truth was next to be attacked so I said 2+2=4. Comments don't always flow on this platform and they jump around so that you can't always tell who is replying to whom.
It amazes me that a lot of these ‘fact checkers’ are 20-30 somethings, or paid by Pharma funds, or extremely partisan funds, or their trust fund daddy, or some combination of the above. 
I’d much rather read the well thought out discussions from a questioning cat or curmudgeon on substack any day!
More schooled but uneducated with an astounding lack of critical thinking - particularly to examine how what they do as fake checkers will effect their own futures if the are successful in their fake checking. "They will own nothing and they will" NOT "be happy."
Yes. I think it's less to do with being committed to a set of ideas (they aren't, and change ideas like clothes whenever the "expert consensus" does) and much more to do with protecting status. They think of themselves as low-level members of the expert class, because they went to college, and *that's* what's foundational to their identity, not the climate beliefs, political crusades other current thing. Since they don't actually have expertise in anything, or generally the ability to research or evaluate anything for themselves, their only option is to repeat slavishly whatever the official experts say, to protect their identity as smart people who are in the know.
Hey, that reminds me re: The Wizard of Oz, does anyone have a line to an explanation of the metaphor Baum's story represents? I saw something a long time ago, but the new internet has done a good job of flushing it down the censor-sewer. Oz = ounce, yellow brick road = gold, etc.
Different but similar ... there's an allegorical comic book that the Boston Fed put out years ago (I know how weird that sounds:-). It's called Wishes and Rainbows https://www.bostonfed.org/publications/economic-education/wishes-and-rainbows.aspx I heard about it from Bix Weir - who has kind of built his online presence around the concept of the allegory included in the comic book. It relates to silver/gold (also communism, socialism, etc.) which is why the Oz talk reminded me of it. I don't pay much attention to Bix Weir for the time being as he seems to always strike the same chord (silver will moonshot, he also touts a particular crypto). So I am not fully endorsing Bix Weir but I find him entertaining, likable ... and his "Road to Roota" story built from the Federal Reserve comic book is interesting.
Thanks - reading this paper reminded me of a book "1900 or The Last President" by Ingersoll Lockwood (August 2, 1841 – September 30, 1918) was an American lawyer and writer. He wrote children's novels, including the Baron Trump novels (1889/93), as well as the dystopian novel, 1900 or The Last President.) There was much to do about silver and gold, general angst, among other issues of those days. What truth do we know of the 1900 election and those times?
After years of reading the poorly thought out and even more poorly written musings from the likes of Eugene Robinson, Charles Blow, and Frank Bruni, Substack has been a breath of fresh air. So many highly intelligent writers (including those commenting under the articles) scouring the facts and poking holes in the official narrative. It has been wonderful to know that I was not the only one who smelled a rat.
When they take down the internet and blame it on Putin (whether he did it or not), then start it up with Truth Ministry propagating lies (Ardern alluded to it this week) that's when the tyranny really gets under way. BTW, Mr. Ed, not Jacinda Ardern, is my favorite talking horse...
Hahaha! Well said indeed! I discovered Substack several months ago and it’s my absolute goto every morning with coffee! And pretty much every free moment that I get during the day!
"BTW, Mr. Ed, not Jacinda Ardern, is my favorite talking horse..." Passed this on to my sister in NZ. She said thank you. Her husband is still laughing!
Yes, and Freddy is my favorite talking pig, Jinx my favorite talking cat, (sorry. 2nd favorite, Gato) and all the Bean farm animals from Walter R. Brooks. I was never so entertained reading to my children as I was reading them that series of books.
Well, not to be dark, but this dynamic has and could lead to one way box cars on rails to a destination where it snows in August:
"this creates the dangerous situation of someone who not only holds beliefs uncritically but experiences challenge to them as personal attack on self and surrogate family"
If we extend this, beyond the perceived personal/surrogate attack, to include the fate of the world (climate change) or the fate of the species (c19) being attacked, then it can get really scary.
All manner of behavior can be justified by zealots and the rest follows because most of the population is the go-along- to-get-along type. Most folks don't find this as a threat because the don't understand how this insular dynamic forms. So they don't question either and are sitting ducks for propaganda.
Ryan, I fear that's exactly where it's headed. For years schools have successfully drummed CRT into the heads of kids. The most racist, hateful things I've ever heard were uttered by young college-educated whites against middle class/blue collar whites. Kulak-ing is going on as we speak.
That the government and media both vilified the unvaccinated last year was positively chilling. One needn't be a historian to see where government-approved hatred leads.
If you haven't yet, take advantage of the 2nd Amendment. People who try to take away your guns have only terrible things planned for you.
Hey Bubba, are you in Kansas now? Those were some mighty terrible winds y'all had down there.
Your observation about those that go along to get along is borne out in our society. When John Henry talks about CRT indoctrination, realize that a significant portion of our young do see the lie for what it is, but they don't muster the courage to resist because they fear ostracization.
I have no formal sociology or psychology training, so I don't know the precise terms. Much of the dysfunction we are discussing here I would call tribal behavior, in-group vs. out-group, or as Rosemary below might term it, a juvenile clique. The social/herd instinct is strong in humans of course. Shared beliefs (or at least, professed allegiance to certain totems) is a common feature of these. There is no requirement that those tenets have much, or indeed any, basis in reality.
Don't worry, the professionals agree with you. The technical term is "normative conformity." Generally speaking, it is a requirement for social acceptance. Those who do not conform are shunned (at best).
I found myself in that position in high school. O, I so wanted to be in the “in crowd”. Nothing worked and I was miserable. I finally decided the Hell with it. Suddenly, I was astonished by how my status changed because I didn’t give a damn anymore. I enjoyed high school.
When I studied at uni (30 years ago), it was called homosocial environment and homosociality, meaning like calls to like, but also that unconsious adaptation takes place even if no pressure is applied.
Or perhaps there's a difference in what the terms apply to? Haven't been keeping up since I retired.
I think the terms have evolved a bit. It's generally referred to as normative conformity (I need to change so that I fit in) and informational conformity (I need to change because, since everyone else disagrees with me, I must be wrong).
The two-sided coin of the humanities: on one hand our terms must change as we learn (or unlearn) more, on the other hand making up new terms out of old concepts, new terms which you at least initially control, is necessary for your career to take off.
Made all the easier if you have tenure and sit on the committee choosing what books the students will be forced to buy. Bonus points if you also own interests or shares in the book companies and stores.
1. "Cui bono" is the most important truth detector.
2. Most people really are sheep. This is descriptive, not pejorative.
3. Humans (in the west at least) have evolved *past* where they can handle. People who had to work from dawn to dusk to survive did not have our problems.
Nor we theirs. I concede we have not achieved Paradise. Just the same, I'll take my "dysfunctional" 21st century lifestyle over theirs, any day. I'll bet you do, too.
Yet they survived and and at least some lived into very old age. Many of us only realized the darkness of the 20th century in hindsight; we all believed; 'we' were the good guys and 'they' were the bad guys. I think today we see it was not so black and white.
It remains to be seen ow the 21st century develops for us. Right now, it's not looking great for freedom lovers.
I do like some of the great things that can be done with computers, e.g. word-processors over typewriters, and the instant sources of knowledge that can be found on the internet. For almost anything else, though, I'd far rather live in the 1950s. Starting over from the beginning with good health and good senses, I'd be game to go back a lot further.
In many ways the Amish have it pretty good. Recently I've considered moving back to where my paternal Grandfather built his house smack dab in Amish/Mennonite country. He was loved by them - some of the most genuine people I've ever met. His funeral brought hundreds of them to pay their respects.
Undoubtedly. It's more "pretty good" to me that they've for the most part been able to avoid a lot of the nonsense we are all subjected to by benefit of being "removed" from it.
I certainly wouldn't join, but would be content surrounded by and working with/among them. Because I wouldn't join, I wouldn't be fully accepted. But feel like if/when the SHTF I'd be better cared for by them than the drones working in the massive DCs or hospitality workers where I now live.
So, not as much praise as perhaps some envy? I'd be interested to see how many return to the fold after their rumspringa, and whether that percentage has changed much over the last several decades.
Yes, they've removed themselves from one kind of nonsense by creating their own.
As far as rumspringa--how many people anywhere have both the courage and resources to remove themselves from their cult and forge a brand-new life among strangers? The devil one knows, fer shure.
I was really referring to issues of freedom and whether (say) "the Internet" makes lives better. Clearly for whatever good we have had from some technological progress, there is at least as much bad. The good part is that we have now seen behind the curtain with respect to exactly how corrupt are leaders are.
Predictive power should be what draws you to people making claims. In science, good theories tend to improve with age and vice versa. In my area of expertise (exercise and nutrition) you see it all the time and while headway is made, institutions cling to bad ideas for far too long. My mistake was not applying that same methodology to some of my other less considered beliefs.
Team Reality, made up of a broad spectrum politically (though many may have moved rightward in these past couple of years), were largely correct from very early on, simply by competently analyzing the known data. I remember first running into Justin Hart in Spring 2020 and thinking, Mormon Republican, not exactly “my type.” But my stupid preconceptions were steadily eroded by his honesty, good humor and clearly good data. Same with our host, really. Some of what he said politically was jarring at first. But the arguments were sound and made in good faith. What at first created dissonance now just seems correct.
For me, it is the only good thing to come of all this craziness - it showed me a lot about the limitations my own filters were providing. I wish the cost of my red pill wasn’t this complete societal shit show, but there you have it.
We all probably know at least one person who practically wove a facemask into his skin during 2020. To remove it now is closer to asking for self-surgery than for mere normalcy.
I think the real insidious thing about the identity-tied dogmas of 2020 is that they were manufactured hurriedly, propped up artificially, and adopted without thought of consequence. Reminds me of something else...
For the vast majority of the true believers, removing, unsewing, or unwelding that “cloaking device” from their faces is more an admission that they were fooled into believing something that they could easily have learned for themselves was patently false. And there are very few folks who are willing to admit that they have been had.
And w/ regard to the jab, I also think even few people can face what they may have done to their health, not to mention what they have done to their children or parents or friends in forcing (as w/ children) or berating others to get it too
Your final sentence is a truism. People or companies that are fraud victims are often too embarrassed to even report the crime. Mark Twain supposedly said (approximately) "It is easier to fool a man than to convince him he has been fooled." Ah yes, we humans have our pride, even if it is often built upon a "foundation" of sand, and the tide is coming in!
We can save for another time: the problem of finding Truth, of the inadequacy of theory and model, and so forth. Even so, our imperfect or even "false" (in the absolutist sense) models of reality are still often very useful. For instance, the geometry or physics you may have learnt in high school, or even the "flat earth theory" are good enough for 99.999% of all potential uses any human would encounter in everyday life. Yes, they are "wrong" in the sense that there are certain conditions that they can't address; the salient point, though, is that these models are more than adequate for day-to-day requirements.
To anyone seeking Pure Truth (or Falsity, for the matter), I say "good luck!" It's a fool's errand. In virtually all fields, except perhaps pure mathematics or logic, the idea of a binary choice between 0 and 1, false and true, is laughable. Virtually all real-world phenomena and thus, any theory/model that dare presume to describe them, are far more complex than to admit such a binary choice. Shades of grey, not black and white, as the old saying goes.
As a teenager growing up in 70s NYC we all fancied ourselves as free thinkers and proudly wore our Question Authority buttons. Fast forward to the present and not one of the people I grew up with have questioned any narrative put forth by the government or the MSM. How does that happen?
I was asking myself that question only recently having had the same experience in a west coast kind of way. The answer I came up with was this: those little punks became the authority and they found they didn't like being questioned much. So those buttons line the landfills now.
Or they benefit from the system the way it is. I sometimes wonder if my career hadn't tanked if I would now be one of them. Although, my career tanked specifically because I had problems with authority - so probably not...
I wrote an article a while back asking this same question -- what makes some people able to see through the BS? There's a lot of great stories here, feel free to add your own!
What you call "inhabiting" an idea is what Herbert Kelman called "identification" 60 years ago. The key, though, is this: it's not about the IDEA, it's about WHO is presenting it.
Thus, someone who was terrified of Trump's "hasty vaccine" in Dec 2019 began to scream for mandates as soon as it become "Biden's miracle." The idea didn't change, only its allegiance did, and all those whose identity includes that allegiance changed with it.
I never really heard much about substack until earlier this year when the Clinton Spawn called out the stack for "facilitating science denialist anti vaxx grifters." I had to come check it out after that. Clinton Spawn calling people grifters! The irony.
Just yesterday, I told my brother that we should strive to critique ideas without criticizing the people holding them; but I fear El Gato-San is correct, that for many ideas become part of personality which motivates the “words are violence” nonsense and censorship movements.
Nietzsche wrote widely about instincts, morals, and a large array of other topics. There's a lot more there than just a voyeuristic abyss and writing God's obituary. Relevant to what we're discussing here, in the beginning of his Beyond Good and Evil, the section is titled "The Prejudices of Philosophers." His critique may be extended to any field of inquiry. In a few sentences, he believes that when creating his theories, the thinker begins with implicit, assumed, often unconscious "truths." Then he erects his dialectic (formal system of thought) to support the ground assumptions, and proclaims the finished structure as "truth." Nietzsche complains that it's precisely these very unchallenged ground assumptions which should be examined. The same rigorous principle of inquiry an testing should apply also to the hard sciences, and indeed, any field of knowledge. He often speaks in terms of man being driven by instincts (including, as mentioned in Gato article, of self-preservation) but also the other "normal" instincts: to reproduce, to gain power, and so on.
In a broader context, he often analyzes the conflicts between what he called master and slave moralty. Often the discussion is couched in terms of nobles vs. peons, or of a new religion as a rebellion or self-defense against the master's. The "inversion of reality" is a common fault. Although religion is usually what he's dissecting, much of his logic can be applied to virtually any dogmatic system of belief, especially those that, like most religions, make truth claims that are either contrary to known reality, or are untestable (e.g. about the "other world.") It should be obvious that many popular current beliefs fall well into the "denial of reality" camp.
It is worth mentioning that Nietzsche was very astute in these observations. He had great insights into human psychology, well before Freud and later more famous investigators.
Let me just say thank you! It is rare to find someone who has read and understood that man's writings, especially in my country where he was removed and almost unpersoned in the 1960s, being labeled a "nazi" philosopher of all things.
As to your point on belief systems, what about this:
A religious belief system places the arbiter and authority of morals and ethics beyond humans. The god(s) say what is right or wrong, and this is in turn presented by the priesthood to the populace. Philosophy when used as a pattern for ethics and morals, as well as ideology o the same but puts another layer on the same process:
The arbitration of morals and ethics are referred to the foundational work of the preferably deceased originator of the idea, as interpreted by those who can claim authority on his/hers works. However, there are no claims of actual godhood therefore making it seem like reason is being used rather than belief.
I'd argue, based on the above, that human civilisation by which I mean the general western such, now stands at a choice: either we reinvent religion, albeit without a formally recognised godhead, and sort-of repeat the eras post Black Death until another such choice appears, or we choose to rid us of the notion of "appeal to authority" as having any actual value or wight, and instea adopt what Nietzsche alludes to: with god gone, we have no excuse for our actions. Whatever we do, or don't do, it's always on us.
I'd even claim that is the essence of the triumph of will: "I wanted to, so I did." No "according to [insert external authority here]". No "for the Greater Good." No nothing. Just owning up to that whatever it was you did, it was you who did it and the entire weight of any and moral and ethical particulats involved are on your and your shoulders alone.
Which is terrifying in the extreme when you think about it.
Damn, I didn't know I was an idiot. Guess that's the way idiocy works. When I discovered Substack earlier this year I thought I found pure gold. People with brains doing real thinking, and most importantly, questioning. This idiot is sticking around as long as they'll let me.
Last year I stumbled on Substack when twitter was blocking people. It is the most fun rabbit hole I've ever fallen into LOL.
My standard now is "If you've been banned by Twatter/Fakebook/UseLessTube then I'll read you on Substack. If not then try harder!
Mee too! I had never participated in social media until finding Gato and Igor.
Glad I did. Was a little rough around the edges with etiquette at first cuz I didn't have any practice...
For me it was a link from a bio-chemist friend. It's interesting because in the discussion threads I've found in the Substack community (still figuring out what that means) are much more diverse in viewpoints expressed than in other forums. It can be a black-hole absorbing time. When people disagree here, it is most often either a reasoned debate or adolescent humor (usually both) with a hint of respectful exchange. On other forums, disagreement seems more often expressed as "you suck!" or "you're evil and I hope you die!" which is not nearly as much fun as real discussion.
I've only seen one troll and he didn't last long. He was buried by logic, not invective.
i find comments on various substacks generally reflect the nature and character of the original writer. it is plainly obvious just reading the substacks that generally agree on the nature of the mrna vaccines.
I agree - hooray Substack. But perhaps not pure gold. I recently found a video interview with Mike Yeadon - who occasionally posted comments here; and context strongly suggested it was actually him. But in this interview he claims he is almost entirely prevented from commenting on any substack site.
He posts, re-freshes and they are gone "never reach the author". I have not seen anything from him in weeks; here or other sites where I once saw him. "I am essentially muted" he reports:
The interview is here:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/political-theatre/former-lead-pfizer-scientist-mike-yeadon-all-is-planned-and-theyre-coming-for-you/
this report occurs about 13:15
I have read that Substack is entirely hosted on Amazon servers (AWS). I suppose that would explain it. Anyone have information that confirms that?
That would be bad ... for Substack! We can always setup on a TOR site or on the Qortal network where censoring is impossible with the peer to peer nature of it. Slower but can't be blocked.
Most sites are hosted by AWS or Google. Most other services are leasing the guts from AWS or Google. And all those servers are connected via government regulated telecommunications services. Mostly built by a few telecom giants.
Our power is in volume and obscurity :-)
I read a comment by Dr. Yeadon just this morning where he said he has no trouble commenting on substack.
Very interesting - thanks - (do you have a link?) - "these days"? -how do you assess anything!? - The video above is probably a month old - it certainly does look like the person I have been identifying as Mike Yeadon, PhD. speaking ... it would be perhaps easier to impersonate persons in a substack forum. I wonder why "Mike Yeadon" never started his own substack? - I am aware of one very cogent, well written position paper by him. https://doctors4covidethics.org/the-covid-lies/
https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/throw-pfizer-from-beneath-the-bus/comment/9409495
Substack doesn't appear to let you easily expand all comments or search within comments. I think I'll send them a suggestion. The standard webpage "site:" search command doesn't seem to work on comment pages.
Thanks - nice to see him here again! - I did (for my own satisfaction) review his remarks on that video posted on Sept 20 (I assumed the video itself was fairly contemporary with that). He does stress, that he can "occasionally" post comments on Substack (never on utube); but then he asserts he is "often banned" from posting comments and describes how they will fail to be displayed after "Post"ing.
Substack is clearly the only positive outcome of the Covid operation; but it actually started in 2017; I would think 95%+ of the readership is post-pandemic. There is good reason to believe that powerful people and interests find it extremely threatening.
Thanks again alerting me to the Yeadon sighting.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/falonfatemi/2021/01/20/the-rise-of-substack-and-whats-behind-it/?sh=4dd61ca0159f
Thanks for the substack article on Forbes, which dates from January 2021, almost 2 years ago. I found it interesting that they chose to focus on the email delivery aspect. That's a minor point for me – I read most of the articles on the web or in the substack app, but for me the bigger attraction is the comment section. Substack comment discussions tend to be more civilized and interesting than on other platforms.
I don't bother with Twitter at all, and, being old as dirt, I find it hard to follow "discussions" there.
'I assumed the video itself was fairly contemporary with that'
We can't assume anything. For example that video clip of the Canadian actress with Bell's palsy that's currently making the rounds dates from May 2021, purportedly (I haven't tried to confirm it myself, that's what I read somewhere in a comment.)
Many people complain about hearts not showing up, and I have observed myself that often when I post a comment it doesn't show up right away. You can always reload the page and then your heart or comment will show up. There's a delay on the page refresh, is all. I'm not saying that's what was happening to Dr. Mike, but it's a possibility.
That said, I know individual substack authors can ban specific users from commenting. That's another possibility. But it's not a substack problem per se.
Oh dear. I spent my entire mornings reading various substacks so it would take me a long time to retrace my steps and find it. If I do, I'll let you know. Dr. Yeadon does comment not infrequently in various substacks, but we can only assume he's the real thing.
Yeah, what you said. Ditto
Is this another Catch-22? If you are smart enough to realize when you are being an idiot does that mean...ah never mind I'm getting a headache ;-).
But seriously...well semi-seriously (too close to serious and I get an allergic reaction),
The demonization of independent thought has been ongoing for decades. It seems to be escalating, but perhaps that is really just an awareness level - now we know what it looks like we see it more. And it looks ugly, kids.
I routinely advocate primary sources. When discussing proposed or actual legislation, I encourage people to read it themselves. You would probably not be surprised at the abuse I receive for such suggestions. Frequently because people really want to believe the politicians and media description and reading the actual text contradicts what they've been told the bill or law contains.
It used to be "I don't have time" or "it's too complicated for a lay person to understand" (two clear signs of bad law BTW is it's overly verbose and complex). But more recently, more overtly, it is "evil demon-spawn right wing extremist Trump-lover BEGONE!" or there abouts.
One of my greatest irritations with legislation is the practice of assigning a name to it, which is often totally opposite the effect the legislation will have. "Inflation Reduction Act of 2022"
I like it. You know exactly what the legislation will do by inverting the name because it is ALWAYS totally opposite.
It's become so common that I expect it. Most bills are also loaded with "motherhood" text that extolls the virtues of the bill and are usually absurdly contrary to the actual content of the bill, too.
I would add one more to your list of real thinking, real questioning. It would be putting in to practice what real thinking and real questioning reveal. Practice is proof of the pudding. You may think you have the perfect design for a rocket. But when you build you are humbled.
"Idiot" is the new "deplorable."
Absolutely. I was never a huge Rush fan because I worked nights when he rose to fame and I just never got a chance to listen. But during the Russia hoax I started reading his website and realized I had missed a pretty good thing. In fact, one day he said, "If you want peace in your life, turn off the TV." , or something to that effect. And I did. We watch old movies on Netflix or Prime if we watch anything. I haven't watched commercial TV in years so I felt none of the pressure to get vaxxed, saw none of the COVID fear mongering and got all my news from alternative media. One the smartest things I ever did.
In the Wizard of Oz, the Wizard grants recognition to the Scarecrow, Tin Man and Lion after they demonstrated their virtues. The Scarecrow had the education, but not the diploma. In our society, it’s the opposite. “Experts” get their credentials first without mastery of anything. Then, they wage war against anything or anyone who might expose them. Here’s a test: how many people lecturing us on the climate crisis know anything at all about the climate? How many of the “my mask protects you” crowd had read anything other than the curated information that El Gato writes about? The answer is virtually none. It’s not science, knowledge or expertise. It is Joseph Goebbels.
There is a big difference between being schooled and being educated.
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Twain
"Education is an admirable thing, but it is well to remember from time to time that nothing that is worth knowing can be taught." - Wilde
I am keeping these quotes.
Plenty more great ones here:
https://medium.com/the-mission/what-einstein-twain-forty-eight-others-said-about-school-f3cadec1b27b
All reasons we decided to homeschool. Thanks for the link.
My two are upstairs learning as I type!
My uncle, who taught school for over 40 years, had this, (among several other irreverent Twain quotes), on his classroom wall. Said it kept him humble, and "the school board off his ass". (Note: All of his 42 years as a teacher were in small rural schools.)
Oh. I like that.
Learning via the Socratic method is now prohibited in universities, you mustn’t question the dogma!
Having experienced both, I must agree emphatically!
"Follow the science" claims they posit has been growing since the global warming craze. Who/what will be the next victim of "science?"
Back in the late 1980s a colleague of mine came to me with a problem. He was trying to use simulation code developed by JPL which modeled upper atmospheric circulation. The model had just been published, and he had gotten the code from the JPL team. His problem was that he could change significantly the input parameters without seeing any change in the output. In the world of computer simulations models, this is usually a property we call "broken". Upon deep dive into the code, we found some errors...consulting with the original research team at JPL, we traced most to some errors in the mathematical foundation of the model. Subsequently, the JPL team published an update correcting the errors in the model, including an update to the paper and to the code.
Subsequently the "man made global warming" claims began to emerge. First in some fairly serious looking research papers, one of which came to my attention. I noted it was based on conclusions reached using the JPL simulation models. I noted in the citation the original (broken) version was cited. An interested colleague contacted the authors to confirm that they had indeed used the original model, not the corrected model published later.
A dozen years latter I found myself developing research tools that made integrating information from multiple publication tools practical. As a test I ran a source-tree analysis of all available published papers in public databases on the topic of climate change (this being around 2000 it was still called "global warming"). What I found was astounding - when tracing back references, the result is an inverted pyramid with the original (broken) JPL model at the point! The foundation of "greenhouse gas" is a broken simulation model which was subsequently fixed by the team that created it - and the corrected version does not support the greenhouse gas theory behind "CO2 is evil" litany.
That's when I realized there was no science, only politics, in the man-made global warming field of "the science". Of course by then the warnings signs were abundant - "the science is settled" and "all the worlds experts agree" were constant mantras.
That's incredible! (But not really surprising!) Did you ever publish that?
That research you did is something few know about. Was it ever published? My guess is that it would still likely to be valid.
One point has always stuck with me is that most modelling software becomes exceedingly complex over time. Should the original developers move on, maintenance becomes more and more difficult and revisions nearly impossible. Perhaps more modern tools resolve the issue, but I doubt it.
I recommend Steven Koonin’s book “Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What it Doesn’t, and Why it Matters.” Koonin was Undersecretary for Science at the Department of Energy under Obama. He points out the difference between what the science actually says and what it is reported to say.
I'll have to take a look, but if Koonin is really speaking the truth about this, he's bound to be cancelled. And hard. That's been made very, very clear. Silence and cancel, but the numbers still don't work to support the "carbon mitigation to save the planet" story.
A geologist will tell you , at least in private, that climate change is real, but not affected by green house gases or human activity. There has been no point in the history of this planet so far when the climate wasn't changing. We've been through multiple ice ages (yes more than one). Geophysics of this planet is well supported by evidence indicating that once the entire planet was much, much warmer than it is now (as in mostly molten) and that it was once much colder most places. Warmer than during the most recent ice age of course. Which was much colder than before it's onset. The core of the planet is thought to be molten, with numerous geophysical observations supporting this theory such as active lava flows. BTW a single Volcano emits more so called green house gasses (GSG) per "event" than all of human activity has produced in our existence, or could produce in millions of years more (should we survive). This is where the numbers really fail to add up to the conclusion that human activity has impacted climate.
The real danger of climate change is the GSG based denial of reality. Humans have shown to be adaptable creatures. When we put our collective minds to it, we find solutions. But first we need to focus on the real problems. Reducing "carbon emissions" and other GSG "mitigations" is denial of reality. Change is inevitable, it is how the planet works. We *may* have control over how we deal with change. But the GSG swindle denies the opportunity to seek actual solutions.
I'd be interested to get the name of the paper, or a link to more on this. Thank you.
Looks like the broken code was not a bug but a feature.
It certainly has become so.
It helped explain why the GSG story never seems to add up consistently.
Not science, THE science...
The Science™️
The best is el gato malo's $cience.
"THE Science" "OUR Democracy"
One should be suspicious of such qualifiers. The first mention of "THE Science" I ever heard was in an advert for hair conditioner.
"Follow the science" should always trigger the response "And who's leading the science?".
Expect blank stares, rumination, and a change of subject.
The LOL "experts"
True. That's when we break out the Sokratic method.
"Which expert(s)?"
"How do you know he/she is correct?"
"Do you think the 35sec snippet on TV was the entire interview they did with [expert+title+field]?"
And so on. Expect more rumination, possibly anger, and a change of subject. A smaller percentage will become passive-aggressive and try to do the same to you, which is easily deflated. All you really need is one or two named sources, preferably commonly known names or official governemental agencies - and those doesn't need to be from your own nation.
Example: if saying you refrain from mRNA-shots due to the risk of myo-/pericarditis and is challenged, refer to the japanese studies made and the warnings issued by their medical corps.
If your debate-opponent is woke, it makes it even more delicious to imply they are dismissing data and research because the origin is non-white...
In my experience this does not work, they are happy to dismiss whatever source you name and instead cite "all the experts" or "everyone." The most you'll get is a "hmm, I'll have to look into that," followed by immediately forgetting the conversation ever happened.
Sad to hear that, but I have experienced it as well. I think it may well have to do with perceived interpersonal status. Like this:
Unless I dress for a formal occasion, I wear drab old well-worn practical clothing with no other thought than how practical they are - old hunting clothes, or army surplus/old uniform - Hollywood Hillbilly if you know what I mean.
And I have noticed a very clear difference in response depending on whether I look like that, or if I'm wearing bluejeans and t-shirt, or even suit and tie. The more formal the look, the less hostile the response.
The same goes for language. If I channel all the academical blather I've learned over the years, along with the mannerisms, that again lowers the likelyhood of hostile or dismissive repsonse. Especially if the tone of voice and phrasing is kept reconcilliatory and slightly worried without crossing over into condescending.
On the other hand, if I go for man-of-the-woods-carrying-an-axe in appearance and manner, people tries to shut me down.
Of course, this is purely anecdotal, and I'm discounting national and regional differences too, but maybe there's some slivver of a point in this?
Sadly, I have to agree. Many of the unfortunate souls who suffer from that loathsome affliction, (woke-ism), are also affected by a curious form of amnesia that renders the sufferers unable to recall ANY opinion that runs counter to the narrative of the hour.
Follow the money. And oh look who's printing it...
2+2=4.
Don, you're out of date. I have it on good authority, (from no less than 'The Science' himself, that 2+2=7, or 321, or whatever HE declares it to be!
Haha. Yeah the commenter was asking what truth was next to be attacked so I said 2+2=4. Comments don't always flow on this platform and they jump around so that you can't always tell who is replying to whom.
It amazes me that a lot of these ‘fact checkers’ are 20-30 somethings, or paid by Pharma funds, or extremely partisan funds, or their trust fund daddy, or some combination of the above. 
I’d much rather read the well thought out discussions from a questioning cat or curmudgeon on substack any day!
More schooled but uneducated with an astounding lack of critical thinking - particularly to examine how what they do as fake checkers will effect their own futures if the are successful in their fake checking. "They will own nothing and they will" NOT "be happy."
Yes. I think it's less to do with being committed to a set of ideas (they aren't, and change ideas like clothes whenever the "expert consensus" does) and much more to do with protecting status. They think of themselves as low-level members of the expert class, because they went to college, and *that's* what's foundational to their identity, not the climate beliefs, political crusades other current thing. Since they don't actually have expertise in anything, or generally the ability to research or evaluate anything for themselves, their only option is to repeat slavishly whatever the official experts say, to protect their identity as smart people who are in the know.
Hey, that reminds me re: The Wizard of Oz, does anyone have a line to an explanation of the metaphor Baum's story represents? I saw something a long time ago, but the new internet has done a good job of flushing it down the censor-sewer. Oz = ounce, yellow brick road = gold, etc.
Just free association here:
Dorothy: innocence, the american public, especially children.
Scarecrow: folks acquiescing before titles instead of deeds.
Tin man: industry.
Lion: Britain.
The munchkins: people living under oppression without the fortitude to do anything about it themselves.
The witches: choice, and that good and evil are choices and co-joined twins.
Oz: don't look at the formal, ostentatious and obvious ruler, look one step below and to the side from the title of power, to find the real ruler(s).
Edit: Toto: conscience and empathy.
Different but similar ... there's an allegorical comic book that the Boston Fed put out years ago (I know how weird that sounds:-). It's called Wishes and Rainbows https://www.bostonfed.org/publications/economic-education/wishes-and-rainbows.aspx I heard about it from Bix Weir - who has kind of built his online presence around the concept of the allegory included in the comic book. It relates to silver/gold (also communism, socialism, etc.) which is why the Oz talk reminded me of it. I don't pay much attention to Bix Weir for the time being as he seems to always strike the same chord (silver will moonshot, he also touts a particular crypto). So I am not fully endorsing Bix Weir but I find him entertaining, likable ... and his "Road to Roota" story built from the Federal Reserve comic book is interesting.
https://wr.english.fsu.edu/College-Composition/Our-Own-Words-The-James-M.-McCrimmon-Award/Our-Own-Words-2005-2006-Edition/The-Wizard-of-Oz-More-Than-Just-a-Children-s-Story-by-Lauren-Houlberg This has some good ideas about the symbolism.
Thanks - reading this paper reminded me of a book "1900 or The Last President" by Ingersoll Lockwood (August 2, 1841 – September 30, 1918) was an American lawyer and writer. He wrote children's novels, including the Baron Trump novels (1889/93), as well as the dystopian novel, 1900 or The Last President.) There was much to do about silver and gold, general angst, among other issues of those days. What truth do we know of the 1900 election and those times?
https://tv.gab.com/channel/ipot1776/view/1900-or-the-last-president-ingersoll-600c1f0e234da744fbb9195c
Outside my knowledge but I do know the world went to hell when we quit the gold standard. Check out this site wtfhappenedin1971.com
After years of reading the poorly thought out and even more poorly written musings from the likes of Eugene Robinson, Charles Blow, and Frank Bruni, Substack has been a breath of fresh air. So many highly intelligent writers (including those commenting under the articles) scouring the facts and poking holes in the official narrative. It has been wonderful to know that I was not the only one who smelled a rat.
When they take down the internet and blame it on Putin (whether he did it or not), then start it up with Truth Ministry propagating lies (Ardern alluded to it this week) that's when the tyranny really gets under way. BTW, Mr. Ed, not Jacinda Ardern, is my favorite talking horse...
God help us all.
Often, it is the comments that I revel in, that I beat my head against, that I wallow in like a pig in ..well...
I'm so grateful to the bright, playful,and inquisitive minds I witness - both authors and peanut gallery.
👍👍👍
I don't think there's ever been a society or era that has not been able to find a way around censorship. Truth comes from God so cannot be stopped.
Having said that, we must start preparing. My first step is getting rid of as much microsoft as possible.
I think the internet going down will be the “sign” that tyranny is making its most profound stand and that the confrontation has peaked.
Hahaha! Well said indeed! I discovered Substack several months ago and it’s my absolute goto every morning with coffee! And pretty much every free moment that I get during the day!
"BTW, Mr. Ed, not Jacinda Ardern, is my favorite talking horse..." Passed this on to my sister in NZ. She said thank you. Her husband is still laughing!
Hey, Jacinda! Why the long face?
Awesome! I feel sorry for those oppressed people. God help them.
Yes, and Freddy is my favorite talking pig, Jinx my favorite talking cat, (sorry. 2nd favorite, Gato) and all the Bean farm animals from Walter R. Brooks. I was never so entertained reading to my children as I was reading them that series of books.
Just for fun, Google Jacinda Arden she's got big balls and watch the video.
Well, not to be dark, but this dynamic has and could lead to one way box cars on rails to a destination where it snows in August:
"this creates the dangerous situation of someone who not only holds beliefs uncritically but experiences challenge to them as personal attack on self and surrogate family"
If we extend this, beyond the perceived personal/surrogate attack, to include the fate of the world (climate change) or the fate of the species (c19) being attacked, then it can get really scary.
All manner of behavior can be justified by zealots and the rest follows because most of the population is the go-along- to-get-along type. Most folks don't find this as a threat because the don't understand how this insular dynamic forms. So they don't question either and are sitting ducks for propaganda.
Ryan, I fear that's exactly where it's headed. For years schools have successfully drummed CRT into the heads of kids. The most racist, hateful things I've ever heard were uttered by young college-educated whites against middle class/blue collar whites. Kulak-ing is going on as we speak.
That the government and media both vilified the unvaccinated last year was positively chilling. One needn't be a historian to see where government-approved hatred leads.
If you haven't yet, take advantage of the 2nd Amendment. People who try to take away your guns have only terrible things planned for you.
I had never owned gun until four years ago. Let's put it this way; I have enough to do damage.
I hope those days don't come, but I've seen enough to know that it's naive to believe it doesn't have the potential to come to that.
We no longer live in a free country. Indeed it could get grim.
Hey Bubba, are you in Kansas now? Those were some mighty terrible winds y'all had down there.
Your observation about those that go along to get along is borne out in our society. When John Henry talks about CRT indoctrination, realize that a significant portion of our young do see the lie for what it is, but they don't muster the courage to resist because they fear ostracization.
We need to teach them to STICK IT TO THE MAN!
Nah. Stuck it out. We sure had a lot of wind. More than they were predicting. It was a sustained 80+mph for at least 4 hours.
Hoping electricity gets turned back on soon. Bubba don't like being hot.
Agree, my elder. You are right!...;)
Learn to Drive A Rifle, or end up riding a railcar.
This is exactly where it’s headed. The sooner we say no to censorship, lock downs etc, I’m guessing the better.
You cannot reason with a demoralized person. The more “elite” the university, the more demoralized it is: https://yuribezmenov.substack.com/p/how-to-get-into-harvard-part-2
I have no formal sociology or psychology training, so I don't know the precise terms. Much of the dysfunction we are discussing here I would call tribal behavior, in-group vs. out-group, or as Rosemary below might term it, a juvenile clique. The social/herd instinct is strong in humans of course. Shared beliefs (or at least, professed allegiance to certain totems) is a common feature of these. There is no requirement that those tenets have much, or indeed any, basis in reality.
Don't worry, the professionals agree with you. The technical term is "normative conformity." Generally speaking, it is a requirement for social acceptance. Those who do not conform are shunned (at best).
I found myself in that position in high school. O, I so wanted to be in the “in crowd”. Nothing worked and I was miserable. I finally decided the Hell with it. Suddenly, I was astonished by how my status changed because I didn’t give a damn anymore. I enjoyed high school.
When I studied at uni (30 years ago), it was called homosocial environment and homosociality, meaning like calls to like, but also that unconsious adaptation takes place even if no pressure is applied.
Or perhaps there's a difference in what the terms apply to? Haven't been keeping up since I retired.
I think the terms have evolved a bit. It's generally referred to as normative conformity (I need to change so that I fit in) and informational conformity (I need to change because, since everyone else disagrees with me, I must be wrong).
I never played
The two-sided coin of the humanities: on one hand our terms must change as we learn (or unlearn) more, on the other hand making up new terms out of old concepts, new terms which you at least initially control, is necessary for your career to take off.
Made all the easier if you have tenure and sit on the committee choosing what books the students will be forced to buy. Bonus points if you also own interests or shares in the book companies and stores.
You sound almost as bitter as my father did when Noam Chomsky's bullshit theories about linguistics torpedoed his PhD.
Absolutely!
Coterie seems very apt?
agree.
It also reminds me of Junior High School.
Yes, the Soviets did a great job.
1. "Cui bono" is the most important truth detector.
2. Most people really are sheep. This is descriptive, not pejorative.
3. Humans (in the west at least) have evolved *past* where they can handle. People who had to work from dawn to dusk to survive did not have our problems.
Nor we theirs. I concede we have not achieved Paradise. Just the same, I'll take my "dysfunctional" 21st century lifestyle over theirs, any day. I'll bet you do, too.
Yet they survived and and at least some lived into very old age. Many of us only realized the darkness of the 20th century in hindsight; we all believed; 'we' were the good guys and 'they' were the bad guys. I think today we see it was not so black and white.
It remains to be seen ow the 21st century develops for us. Right now, it's not looking great for freedom lovers.
I concur!
I do like some of the great things that can be done with computers, e.g. word-processors over typewriters, and the instant sources of knowledge that can be found on the internet. For almost anything else, though, I'd far rather live in the 1950s. Starting over from the beginning with good health and good senses, I'd be game to go back a lot further.
In many ways the Amish have it pretty good. Recently I've considered moving back to where my paternal Grandfather built his house smack dab in Amish/Mennonite country. He was loved by them - some of the most genuine people I've ever met. His funeral brought hundreds of them to pay their respects.
Lovely. I hope you can manage to find your way back there.
I'm always surprised when people praise the Amish. Group-think with a vengeance.
Undoubtedly. It's more "pretty good" to me that they've for the most part been able to avoid a lot of the nonsense we are all subjected to by benefit of being "removed" from it.
I certainly wouldn't join, but would be content surrounded by and working with/among them. Because I wouldn't join, I wouldn't be fully accepted. But feel like if/when the SHTF I'd be better cared for by them than the drones working in the massive DCs or hospitality workers where I now live.
So, not as much praise as perhaps some envy? I'd be interested to see how many return to the fold after their rumspringa, and whether that percentage has changed much over the last several decades.
Yes, they've removed themselves from one kind of nonsense by creating their own.
As far as rumspringa--how many people anywhere have both the courage and resources to remove themselves from their cult and forge a brand-new life among strangers? The devil one knows, fer shure.
I was really referring to issues of freedom and whether (say) "the Internet" makes lives better. Clearly for whatever good we have had from some technological progress, there is at least as much bad. The good part is that we have now seen behind the curtain with respect to exactly how corrupt are leaders are.
Cui bono. Saved my ass. I owe it to my 6th grade teacher. RIP Mr. Glenn.
It’s out time that being this type of idiot became trendy, lol. The real cool cats of SubStack. Explore our inner cats.
Substacks like gato malo's IS the news channel: just learned here that substacks are hated...
are you surprised?
Kinda? I guess I did not credit many of the Marinated in Bulls**t crowd to even recognize that substack existed, as it's out of their echo chamber.
I recognize this now as my lack, however I'm still biased enough to think that they don't actually Read the ' stacks we post up.
actually, yes! i don’t like deja vues they must be a mistake or so i hope
Predictive power should be what draws you to people making claims. In science, good theories tend to improve with age and vice versa. In my area of expertise (exercise and nutrition) you see it all the time and while headway is made, institutions cling to bad ideas for far too long. My mistake was not applying that same methodology to some of my other less considered beliefs.
Team Reality, made up of a broad spectrum politically (though many may have moved rightward in these past couple of years), were largely correct from very early on, simply by competently analyzing the known data. I remember first running into Justin Hart in Spring 2020 and thinking, Mormon Republican, not exactly “my type.” But my stupid preconceptions were steadily eroded by his honesty, good humor and clearly good data. Same with our host, really. Some of what he said politically was jarring at first. But the arguments were sound and made in good faith. What at first created dissonance now just seems correct.
For me, it is the only good thing to come of all this craziness - it showed me a lot about the limitations my own filters were providing. I wish the cost of my red pill wasn’t this complete societal shit show, but there you have it.
We all probably know at least one person who practically wove a facemask into his skin during 2020. To remove it now is closer to asking for self-surgery than for mere normalcy.
I think the real insidious thing about the identity-tied dogmas of 2020 is that they were manufactured hurriedly, propped up artificially, and adopted without thought of consequence. Reminds me of something else...
For the vast majority of the true believers, removing, unsewing, or unwelding that “cloaking device” from their faces is more an admission that they were fooled into believing something that they could easily have learned for themselves was patently false. And there are very few folks who are willing to admit that they have been had.
And w/ regard to the jab, I also think even few people can face what they may have done to their health, not to mention what they have done to their children or parents or friends in forcing (as w/ children) or berating others to get it too
Cindi: Yes, so true.
Your final sentence is a truism. People or companies that are fraud victims are often too embarrassed to even report the crime. Mark Twain supposedly said (approximately) "It is easier to fool a man than to convince him he has been fooled." Ah yes, we humans have our pride, even if it is often built upon a "foundation" of sand, and the tide is coming in!
We can save for another time: the problem of finding Truth, of the inadequacy of theory and model, and so forth. Even so, our imperfect or even "false" (in the absolutist sense) models of reality are still often very useful. For instance, the geometry or physics you may have learnt in high school, or even the "flat earth theory" are good enough for 99.999% of all potential uses any human would encounter in everyday life. Yes, they are "wrong" in the sense that there are certain conditions that they can't address; the salient point, though, is that these models are more than adequate for day-to-day requirements.
To anyone seeking Pure Truth (or Falsity, for the matter), I say "good luck!" It's a fool's errand. In virtually all fields, except perhaps pure mathematics or logic, the idea of a binary choice between 0 and 1, false and true, is laughable. Virtually all real-world phenomena and thus, any theory/model that dare presume to describe them, are far more complex than to admit such a binary choice. Shades of grey, not black and white, as the old saying goes.
The mathematician Kurt Goedel proved that no system of mathematics can derive all truths expressable in that system. I think it drove him mad.
As a teenager growing up in 70s NYC we all fancied ourselves as free thinkers and proudly wore our Question Authority buttons. Fast forward to the present and not one of the people I grew up with have questioned any narrative put forth by the government or the MSM. How does that happen?
I was asking myself that question only recently having had the same experience in a west coast kind of way. The answer I came up with was this: those little punks became the authority and they found they didn't like being questioned much. So those buttons line the landfills now.
Or they benefit from the system the way it is. I sometimes wonder if my career hadn't tanked if I would now be one of them. Although, my career tanked specifically because I had problems with authority - so probably not...
I wrote an article a while back asking this same question -- what makes some people able to see through the BS? There's a lot of great stories here, feel free to add your own!
https://simulationcommander.substack.com/p/why-are-you-like-this
What it seems to come down to is some event when you're younger that causes you to distrust authority -- and the habit never goes away.
What you call "inhabiting" an idea is what Herbert Kelman called "identification" 60 years ago. The key, though, is this: it's not about the IDEA, it's about WHO is presenting it.
Thus, someone who was terrified of Trump's "hasty vaccine" in Dec 2019 began to scream for mandates as soon as it become "Biden's miracle." The idea didn't change, only its allegiance did, and all those whose identity includes that allegiance changed with it.
I've written about that here, if there's no objection from El Gato to a little self-promotion. https://dystopianliving.substack.com/p/the-psychology-of-compliance
I never really heard much about substack until earlier this year when the Clinton Spawn called out the stack for "facilitating science denialist anti vaxx grifters." I had to come check it out after that. Clinton Spawn calling people grifters! The irony.
Thanks Clinton Spawn Superpredator Grifter.
The old story about the cardinal being offered to see the mountains on the Moon through the newly invented telescope comes to mind regarding academia.
See, the official position of the church was that the Moon was a smooth body, no mountains or other things.
Thus, the cardinal declined, since he didn't need to look at the Moon to know it was smooth.
Replace with -ism or dogma of choice as needed.
I expect "trust but verify" to be called criminal treason any day.
As opposed to fully legal treason of course.
Just yesterday, I told my brother that we should strive to critique ideas without criticizing the people holding them; but I fear El Gato-San is correct, that for many ideas become part of personality which motivates the “words are violence” nonsense and censorship movements.
Nietzsche wrote widely about instincts, morals, and a large array of other topics. There's a lot more there than just a voyeuristic abyss and writing God's obituary. Relevant to what we're discussing here, in the beginning of his Beyond Good and Evil, the section is titled "The Prejudices of Philosophers." His critique may be extended to any field of inquiry. In a few sentences, he believes that when creating his theories, the thinker begins with implicit, assumed, often unconscious "truths." Then he erects his dialectic (formal system of thought) to support the ground assumptions, and proclaims the finished structure as "truth." Nietzsche complains that it's precisely these very unchallenged ground assumptions which should be examined. The same rigorous principle of inquiry an testing should apply also to the hard sciences, and indeed, any field of knowledge. He often speaks in terms of man being driven by instincts (including, as mentioned in Gato article, of self-preservation) but also the other "normal" instincts: to reproduce, to gain power, and so on.
In a broader context, he often analyzes the conflicts between what he called master and slave moralty. Often the discussion is couched in terms of nobles vs. peons, or of a new religion as a rebellion or self-defense against the master's. The "inversion of reality" is a common fault. Although religion is usually what he's dissecting, much of his logic can be applied to virtually any dogmatic system of belief, especially those that, like most religions, make truth claims that are either contrary to known reality, or are untestable (e.g. about the "other world.") It should be obvious that many popular current beliefs fall well into the "denial of reality" camp.
It is worth mentioning that Nietzsche was very astute in these observations. He had great insights into human psychology, well before Freud and later more famous investigators.
Let me just say thank you! It is rare to find someone who has read and understood that man's writings, especially in my country where he was removed and almost unpersoned in the 1960s, being labeled a "nazi" philosopher of all things.
As to your point on belief systems, what about this:
A religious belief system places the arbiter and authority of morals and ethics beyond humans. The god(s) say what is right or wrong, and this is in turn presented by the priesthood to the populace. Philosophy when used as a pattern for ethics and morals, as well as ideology o the same but puts another layer on the same process:
The arbitration of morals and ethics are referred to the foundational work of the preferably deceased originator of the idea, as interpreted by those who can claim authority on his/hers works. However, there are no claims of actual godhood therefore making it seem like reason is being used rather than belief.
I'd argue, based on the above, that human civilisation by which I mean the general western such, now stands at a choice: either we reinvent religion, albeit without a formally recognised godhead, and sort-of repeat the eras post Black Death until another such choice appears, or we choose to rid us of the notion of "appeal to authority" as having any actual value or wight, and instea adopt what Nietzsche alludes to: with god gone, we have no excuse for our actions. Whatever we do, or don't do, it's always on us.
I'd even claim that is the essence of the triumph of will: "I wanted to, so I did." No "according to [insert external authority here]". No "for the Greater Good." No nothing. Just owning up to that whatever it was you did, it was you who did it and the entire weight of any and moral and ethical particulats involved are on your and your shoulders alone.
Which is terrifying in the extreme when you think about it.
If you think you have understood nietsche, you fool yourself, because he makes no sense.
The man wrote 'air castles' of ill-defined prose, in which readers have space to decorate via their own imagination.
Do be fair, much 'philosphy' is the same.
If you want some hard-nosed, based philosophy, read Mises' "Human Action".